Klupchak v First E. Village Assoc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Klupchak v First E. Village Assoc. 2014 NY Slip Op 32218(U) June 13, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 110617/2009 Judge: Geoffrey D. Wright Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCANNED ON 6118120141%1"" i Y-. I *= e SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY ' , " PART -Y7 KLUPCHAK, ANASTASIA INDEX NO. //Obr7/Dq VS. MOTION DATE FIRST EAST VILLAGE SEQUENCE NUMBER : 002 MOTION SEQ. NO. PRESENT: Justice - Index Number : 110617/2009 - DISMISS ACTION The following papers, numbered 1 to 3 , were read on this motion Wfor Notice of YotionlOrder to Show Cause -Affidavits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits -Exhibits Upon t &o'S(Qy) 8 foregoing papers, it is ordered that (No(s). I INo(s). Replying Affidavits Lr- I b b l 1% MI~Smotion (No(s). * 3 h w 2 v) 3 0 c '3UN 18 f!b# ..................................................................... CASE DISPOSED a 2. CHECK AS APPROPIUATE: .............. MOTION IS: 0 GRANTED 0WMED I. CHECK ONE: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER 0DO NOT POST 0GRANTEDIN PART 0OTHER 0SUBMIT ORDER FtDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0REFERENCE [* 2] Plaintiff, Index # 1 106 17/09 DECISION -AgainstFIRST EAST VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, BERNARD MCELONE, SUSAN SCHECK, TRI-STAR EQUITIES, INC., and ROD FELDMAN, Defendants. Present: Hon. Geoffrey D. Wright ................................................................... x Acting Justice Supreme Court RECITATION, AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 22 19(A), of the papers considered in the review of this Motion/Order for summary judgment. PAPERS Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annex Order to Show Cause and Affidavits Annexed Answering Affidavits.. ..................................... JUN 1 8 L u 1 4 Replying Affidavits...................................... MEW Y Exhibits ............................................ .cg Other.. ................ cross-motion.. ......................... cw~n O 6 L Upon the foregoing cited papers, the DecisiodOrder on this Motion is as follows: Defendants Rod Feldman, First East Village Associates, Bernard Mcelhone, Susan Schenk and Tri-Star Equities, Inc., (Defendant) move to dismiss Plaintiff Anastasia Klupchak s (Plaintiff) cause of action alleging violation of the New York City Building Code 527 (Building Code $27), New York City Housing Maintenance Codes $ 15 (Housing Code 0 15), and Multiple Dwelling Law $53 (MDL $53). Plaintiff cross-moves for partial summary judgment pursuant to CPLR $3212, claiming that MDL 5-53 and the Housing Code $15 are applicable as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant s motion to dismiss is denied. Plaintifrs crossmotion for partial summary judgment is also denied. This case arises from an incident that occurred on November 15,2008 at 82 2ndAvenue, New York City. Plaintiff was visiting a friend at her apartment located on the fourth floor of the building. At some point during the gathering, Plaintiff accompanied another one of the guests out onto the fire escape to smoke. The fire escape was accessible through the kitchen window of the apartment. As plaintiff tried to reenter the apartment, she fell through the fire escape, [* 3] plummeting twelve to fifteen feet to a landing below. She sustained injures, including being rendered a paraplegic. On a motion for summary judgment, the proponent must make a prima facie showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, due to the absence of genuine issues of fact. Alverez v. Prospect Hospitul, 68 N.Y.2d 320,501 N.E.2d 572 (1986). Once the movant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidence sufficient to establish the existence of any genuine issues of fact. Zuckerman v. Ct ofniew Yovk, 49 N.Y.2d iy 557 (1 980). Where the moving party fails to make a prima facie showing, the motion must be iy f denied. Winegrud v. Ct o New York Univ. Med Ctr, 64 N.Y.2d 85 1,476 N.E.2d 642,487 N.Y.S.2d 316 (1985). The essential element in a fire escape liability claim under MDL553 is the date of the fire Dept. 1967). Whether escape s erection. People v. Little, 53 Misc. 2d 645,279 N.Y.S.2d 576 (lSt or not the building is designated as a tenement, multi-family dwelling, or otherwise, the statute clearly states that the date of the fire escape s erection is dispositive of whether or not any of the statutes governing fire escape standards are applicable. Although the original nature and use of the building is murky, it is undisputed that the building and fire escape at 82 2 dAvenue were built sometime before 1918. Well before the Multiple Dwellings Law was enacted in 1929. MDL$53 is unambiguous. The opening sentence reads explicitly: Every fire-escape erected after April eighteenth nineteen hundred twenty-nine, shall be located, arranged, constructed and maintained in accordance with the following provisions.. . Plaintiff argues that other provisions of MDL $53 require that the fire escape at 82 2 d Avenue comply with the requirements set forth in MDL $53. Such a reading however, ignores the qualifying nature of the opening sentence. One cannot read the subsequent provisions, which may or may not be more favorable to plaintiff, without first incorporating the opening sentence of MDLs53 into their rationale. Plaintiff also argues that the subsequent change in the buildings usage, from a two family dwelling to a class A multiple family dwelling (sometime before the 2008 accident), brings it under the purview of MDL $53. While the buildings occupancy change is also undisputed, it is not relevant to MDL $53. In order for an alteration to bring a grandfathered fire escape into the reach of MDL $53, MDL $53 states that the fire escape must have specifically been modified. While the work done on the building included replacing partitions, plumbing and HVAC repair, and the installation of a fire suppression system, none of that work was done on the fire escapes themselves. Housing Code $ 15 is also inapplicable to the case at bar. $ 15-1O(a)( 1) of the Housing Code states: These rules have been approved by the Department to supplement the provisions of $53 of the Multiple Dwellings Law in relation to Fire Escape. As such, Housing Code $ 15 is only applicable when MDL $53 itself is applicable, or, when the fire escape in question was built after 1929. Defendant s motion for dismissal is denied on two grounds: the application of Building Code $27, and defendant s liability under common law negligence. Building Code $27 is as [* 4] c , - unambiguous as MDL 953. Its provision expressly state that they only apply to buildings and fire escapes built or altered after the passage of the code in 1968. Under this reading defendant accurately argues that the 1968 code is inapplicable to a fire escape built pre-1929. However, plaintiff points out that the 82 2ndAvenue was cited for several violations of the building code, between 1984 and 2009. Clearly, if the Building Code $27 was not applicable, there would be no basis for said violations. Furthermore, while plaintiff also argues that the building code of 1939 applies to 82 2ndAvenue, defendant s brief makes no argument to that point. Whether or not the 1938 or the 1968 building codes are applicable is a genuine issue of fact, which should be determined by the finder of fact. In Kellman v. 45 Tiernann Assoc., the New York Court of Appeals ruled that regardless of a landlord s compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, such is not dispositive as to whether he or she satisfied their duty under the common law. KelZman v. 45 Tiemann Assoc., 87 N.Y.2d 871 (1995). This raises genuine issues of fact as to whether defendant was given actual or constructive notice as to the alleged hazardous nature of the fire escape, and as to whether it was foreseeable that a tenant s use of the fire escape as a patio or terrace as unsafe. For the aforementioned reasons, this court dismisses plaintiff s cross motion for partial summary judgment, on the applicability of MDL $53 and Housing Code 5 15 as a matter of law, and denies defendant s motion for dismissal outright. Acting Justice of the Supreme Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.